Cliff Varnell

Thank you, Jim. It's a minor point but Todd is very likely correct about Henchliffe's statements re the clothing removal. I like to get my minutiae straight. The fact JFK was struck in the throat from the front by a projectile that didn't exit and left an air pocket instead of a bullet remains unchallenged.

I stand corrected. It was Bowron who testified. Do you have a copy of Never Again!: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination by Harold Weisberg? Check out Chapter 22, pages 239-241. I believe she made some statements on the clothing removal, iirc etc...

Thank you for picking me up, Michael! Sloppy research on my part... It was Bowron who testified to the WC: “...Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing.”

There is no one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- left to argue for the high back wound lie. Half of the entire John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community might buy into the "high back wound" fantasy but NONE OF THEM will come onto this forum to present a fact based argument to back their view. No eye-witnesses, only improperly prepared autopsy evidence, &"bunch theory." They've got nothing. Cliff, you lost that "no bunch" or fold or whatever argument long ago. You have nothing. I have you claiming that the "3+" bunch" was "mostly on the left shoulder," or words to that effect. Of course, the bullet holes in the clothes are to the right of midline. I have you conducting an experiment in which you placed a diagonal fold in fabric by PULLING the fabric "directly up." Pulling on fabric is the exact opposite of bunching fabric, stretching vs. easing. I have you describing a fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner that can only be bunched by the jacket moving down and to the left. I have you putting into evidence the Towner photo and admitting "there isn't much there," or words to that effect. In defiance of the laws of gravity and Newton's First Law of Motion you claim that JFK's shirt and jacket leaped 3 inches up his back in about ten seconds on their own power! And we have the films and photos taken in Dealey Plaza showing the jacket dropping. http://occamsrazorjfk.net/ Take away your inevitable streams of insults and self-contradictions...you've got nothing, Craig.

Todd, I'm still trying to track down her statements. Until then: The WC testimony of Dr. Charles Carrico, the first doctor to treat JFK in the ER. (emphasis added) Dr. Charles Carrico interviewed by Harold Weisberg (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376)

There is no one -- I repeat, NO ONE -- left to argue for the high back wound lie. Half of the entire John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community might buy into the "high back wound" fantasy but NONE OF THEM will come onto this forum to present a fact based argument to back their view. No eye-witnesses, only improperly prepared autopsy evidence, &"bunch theory." They've got nothing.

Aren't you assuming that JFK was hit with a conventional round? The prosectors came to a "general feeling" upon completion of the autopsy that JFK had been hit with blood soluble rounds. The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Conventional bullets don't hit soft tissue and then leave no exit, no bullet, and an air pocket. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscv7d.htm HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray: The Zapruder film shows JFK with his right hand in front of his face and his left hand "grabbing" (Nellie Connally, Clint Hill) or "clutching" (Linda Willis) his throat, consistent with actions to dislodge the projectile. JFK then seized up paralyzed in little more than two seconds. Why are you assuming that the prosectors got it wrong right after the autopsy when there is compelling x-ray, film and eye witness testimony consistent with their conclusion that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds? Black Dog Man circa Z190 had a clear shot. The HSCA photographic panel found a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands. Rosemary Willis described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who appeared to "disappear the next instant." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm Nurse Henchcliffe at Parkland testified that she cut the shirt and nicked the tie while prepping JFK for the trach. Dr. Charles Carrico indicated to Harold Weisberg that the Parkland nurses cut off the shirt and tie. (See post below) Did everyone at Parkland who described the throat wound as an entrance all suffer an identical hallucination? ADDED ON EDIT: Carrico statements (thank you, Todd, I stand corrected)

Needlessly complicated. Invoke the law of parsimony and avoid needless arguments. Properly prepared autopsy material trumps improperly prepared autopsy material. That's it. The historical record clearly shows that JFK's brain was not properly handled, and thus all evidence concerning the head wounds is debased. Once one dismisses the head wound evidence and any other improperly prepared material (the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos) the back wound/throat wound evidence is clear and abundantly redundant: JFK was shot in the back at the level of his third thoracic vertebra, the wound was shallow, no bullet was recovered. JFK was shot in the throat between the 3rd and 4th trach rings, the projectile did not exit and left an air pocket. The latter information was gleaned from the neck x-ray. The autopsists arrived at a preliminary conclusion that JFK was struck with a blood soluble round, utterly consistent with the neck x-ray. Anyone who claims that the medical evidence in this case is "conflicting" or "tangled" is spending too much time studying the head wounds. It's all there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to catch them, these men you seek...

There is compelling evidence that the throat shot came from Black Dog Man, in which case the projectile did not penetrate the windshield. Rosemary Willis described BDM as "conspicuous" and who "disappeared the next instant." The HSCA photographic panel studied the two photos in which BDM appeared and detected a "distinct straight-line feature" in the region of BDM's hands. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

Needlessly complicated. Invoke the law of parsimony and avoid needless arguments. Properly prepared autopsy material trumps improperly prepared autopsy material. That's it. The historical record clearly shows that JFK's brain was not properly handled, and thus all evidence concerning the head wounds is debased. Once one dismisses the head wound evidence and any other improperly prepared material (the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos) the back wound/throat wound evidence is clear and abundantly redundant: JFK was shot in the back at the level of his third thoracic vertebra, the wound was shallow, no bullet was recovered. JFK was shot in the throat between the 3rd and 4th trach rings, the projectile did not exit and left an air pocket. The latter information was gleaned from the neck x-ray. The autopsists arrived at a preliminary conclusion that JFK was struck with a blood soluble round, utterly consistent with the neck x-ray. Anyone who claims that the medical evidence in this case is "conflicting" or "tangled" is spending too much time studying the head wounds.

You said it, Jack! The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol. There is no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos. There is nothing in those photos indicating that it's JFK we are looking at. The entire "head wounds" issue is a place where the sun never shines.

&btw, this fact points directly at persons associated with the CIA, as do the conclusions of the autopsists immediately after the autopsy. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt That's how important the Zapruder film is.

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up -- paralyzed -- in a little more than two seconds circa Z190 thru circa Z230. Jackie Kennedy described the look on his face as "quizzical." Linda Willis, Clint Hill and Nellie Connally all describe JFK as "grabbing" or "clutching" his throat. Three crucial photographs match the Zapruder film recording JFK's posture: Betzner 3 (Z186), Willis 5 (Z202), Altgens 6 (Z255). Gil Jesus makes a crucial analysis of the Zapruder, concluding JFK was trying to dislodge a projectile from his throat before seizing up. I have yet to see any argument that the Zapruder film is anything other than authentic during the crucial period Z186-255. Dismissing Z186-255 as unimportant throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Pat, Where did you get the idea that improperly prepared autopsy evidence trumps properly prepared autopsy evidence?

But she didn't see it until years later. Review Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH, pg 184: Can you imagine how Bowron felt hearing the new President tell his wife to note "what every one says and does?" Strikes me as witness intimidation. Bowron's WC testimony seems to reflect this intimidation.

And if Cyril Wecht had performed the autopsy he WOULD be in a POSITION to offer an opinion. But Cyril Wecht DID NOT PERFORM the autopsy -- and he is emphatic in telling us that those who did perform the autopsy were totally unqualified. If Dr. Wecht's is qualified enough to tell us that the autopsy doctors were way out of their depth, then why should we assume that these incompetents would be able to notice that the strange back wound, with no lane of exit, (which was not noticed by anyone in Parkland) was actually made post-mortem? Finck was not incompetent in his probing of the back wound. Humes and Boswell were not qualified. Finck was. Diana Bowron saw the back wound at Parkland.

Yes Dr. Fetzer, there are vast rabbit holes in the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community I don't go down. I'm unfamiliar with the NAA, the acoustic evidence, 95% of the head wound evidence, 95% of the Zap film alteration evidence, and 100% disinterested in all the witness bashing I see from all quarters of various debates. I specialize in evidence that doesn't require a college degree to verify. I specialize in advancing the case for conspiracy a 5 year old could grasp. I try very hard not to argue anything not perfectly evident in the historical record. I find any argument that seeks to establish the case for conspiracy on evidence it takes an "expert" to verify is inherently weak as primary evidence. The back and throat wounds don't require "expertise" to understand. I know that brilliant work is being done making mountains out of evidentiary molehills...meanwhile, the historical record clearly points to CIA Technical Service Division chief Dr. Sidney Gottlieb as a bona fide Person of Interest...oh, shoot, he just died early last year. I didn't try to get a crack at interviewing him, either... This is consistent with the 5% of the head wound evidence with which I am familiar. My argument is that JFK was killed earlier between Z186 and Z255 -- struck first with a blood soluble paralytic and then struck with a blood soluble toxin. The shots to the head (three makes sense to me) were part of the cover-up as much as the killing...JFK was for all intents and purposes doomed by Z255. The simultaneous head shots were for show. All I need to know is that there was surgery done to the head. I'll argue that this is a massive distraction from clear evidence that someone CIA-connected struck JFK and paralyzed him in the throat. That is the salient fact of the entire case, imo.

Dr. Fetzer, I divide the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community into two definitive types -- those who put JFK's back wound about 5.5" below the collar, and those who place it significantly (2"+) higher. Since you are of the former, I regard you as on the side of the angels. Nevertheless, we have disagreements over far less important issues. A FMJ that left a shallow wound and no bullet? That dog don't hunt.

Indeed. S & O and F/H/B were heroes on Eleven Twenty-Two. The next day H and B were dragooned into the cover-up, which, in my opinion, should not detract from what they had to say on 11/22.

Yes Dr. Fetzer, there are vast rabbit holes in the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research Community I don't go down. I'm unfamiliar with the NAA, the acoustic evidence, 95% of the head wound evidence, 95% of the Zap film alteration evidence, and 100% disinterested in all the witness bashing I see from all quarters of various debates. I specialize in evidence that doesn't require a college degree to verify. I specialize in advancing the case for conspiracy a 5 year old could grasp. I try very hard not to argue anything not perfectly evident in the historical record. I find any argument that seeks to establish the case for conspiracy on evidence it takes an "expert" to verify is inherently weak as primary evidence. The back and throat wounds don't require "expertise" to understand. I know that brilliant work is being done making mountains out of evidentiary molehills...meanwhile, the historical record clearly points to CIA Technical Service Division chief Dr. Sidney Gottlieb as a bona fide Person of Interest...oh, shoot, he just died early last year. I didn't try to get a crack at interviewing him, either... This is consistent with the 5% of the head wound evidence with which I am familiar. My argument is that JFK was killed earlier between Z186 and Z255 -- struck first with a blood soluble paralytic and then struck with a blood soluble toxin. The shots to the head (three makes sense to me) were part of the cover-up as much as the killing...JFK was for all intents and purposes doomed by Z255. The simultaneous head shots were for show. All I need to know is that there was surgery done to the head. I'll argue that this is a massive distraction from clear evidence that someone CIA-connected struck JFK and paralyzed him in the throat. That is the salient fact of the entire case, imo.

Are you kidding me? The body alteration view belongs 100% to David Lifton and David Lifton alone, so you think Humes would have ever brought it up? Or someone might have found Sibert and O'neils report of surgery to the head, but we all know that someone was David Lifton Yes, I'm giving him credit for the original research. But the view is from the historical record, that belongs to us all. I do my level best to engage in theory very sparingly. It is not David Lifton's "theory" -- it is part of the historical record and is unfortunately labeled "theory" and assigned as one would property rights to the original researcher. I don't believe elements of the historical record "belong" to anyone. Humes observation of surgery to the head wound is the salient fact. I'm a gambling man -- I'll give you 2 to 1 odds David agrees with me!

Only the head wound evidence. The back wound and throat wound evidence is abundantly redundant and irrefutable. The head wound discussion is absurd, burning up bandwidth and leveling forests for a conversation rendered meaningless by Humes declaration that there appeared to have been surgery performed on the head. After that, the discussion is radioactive and can only lead to dead ends. The back and throat wound evidence, on the other hand, is quite clear: JFK was shot in the back at or just below the level of his 3rd thoracic vertebra and the wound was shallow with no bullet recovered; JFK was shot in the throat from the front by a projectile which left an air pocket and no bullet. The night of the autopsy Finck et al seriously considered the possibility JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, which in fact had been developed for the CIA to paralyze guard dogs in two seconds, and which were tested on humans. The Zapruder film clearly shows JFK becoming paralyzed in little more than two seconds after Z190. What else would you like to know? Sorry, but the "alteration view" doesn't belong to David Lifton. It is part of the historical record researched by David Lifton. I thank David for his great work on the medical evidence, but this alteration view originated with Commander Humes. This view is part of a properly prepared FBI autopsy report by FBI SAs Sibert and O'Neill. This researcher-centric view of the JFK assassination evidence is counter-productive, in my view.

What about Z186 thru Z255 (Betzner3/Willis5/Altgens 6), which matches the testimony of the people with the best view of JFK during that length of time?

Thank you, Bernice. I've exhausted my annual allowance for head wound discussions for both 2009 and 2010 (one each) in the last few days. I find the discussion absurd, and any prolonged conversation about the head wounds is inherently obfuscationary.

The fact that the Dealey Plaza folks witnessed a transitory event which lasted seconds while the Parkland doctors observed a stationary body up close for an extended period of time, and described it with medical precision. What part of "occipital-parietal" don't you understand? Cliff, if you read the literature on the effects of rotation on human cognition you'll see that the length of time one is near a rotated object is unrelated to one's ability to accurately recall the appearance of the object. We're not dealing with "one" recollection, we are dealing with about a dozen, at least, all medical professionals of good standing and most precise in the description of a massive "occipital-parietal" exit wound. Your assumptions about their cognitive opportunities in the ER find no support in the testimony. If they hadn't observed an "occipital-parietal" wound they would not have made unqualified comments to that effect. "Trendelenburg"? Is that German for "specious"?